1. Field of the Invention
The present invention pertains to the burial of human beings after death. More particularly, the present invention concerns structures to contain the remains of multiple human beings therein. Even more particularly, the present invention pertains to burial structures for multiple numbers of human remains that render the remains contained therein unattainable and non-retrievable while effecting a proper, aesthetic and reverent memorial.
2. Prior Art
The funeral and after-death industry has long attended to the last needs of people. The traditional solution to the question of how to, in a dignified manner, dispose of the remains of the deceased has been either to bury the body in the earth or, if at sea, at the bottom of a large body of water. While these options will still be desired by many people, ecological concerns, considered in conjunction with the ever-growing world population and the increasing pressure to make available more arable land for crop production, will dictate in coming decades that other options be explored and more widely selected.
Excluding sea burial as a viable and ecological alternative, this leaves land burial. Even when sufficient tracks of land were available for the traditional burial of human remains in the ground, there has been the problems in the past of maintaining such properties in a fitting manner. Funding problems and simply the march of time have rendered often the corporations or people entrusted to oversee graveyards unable to fulfill their obligations, forcing state and local authorities to closely monitor such matters.
History has shown that such traditional methods of burial, even when expertly made to last millennia, will be subject to vandalism. A most famous case is the Egyptian pyramids, wherein the bodies were looted over time even though great strides were taken to conceal the burial chamber. This is due to the tact that workers needed to get out, and thus passages needed to be left.
Many cultures have considered cremation as a preferred means of laying to rest those of the community who have passed on. Even in western culture this option has risen in popularity. However, this option has encountered problems when carried forward in many areas, especially the United States.
One problem encountered has been the scattering of ashes. Many people have desired to spread the cremens of a loved one in a favorite park, lake or other area However, many state, local and religious laws forbid such actions. Further, these acts cause a pollution which, likely, is unintended by the deceased.
Even if the loved one does not scatter the remains, an awkward situation develops. The cremens are contained in an urn, which is then kept around one's home. Social situations of an unpleasant variety can occur when visitors see an urn in a home. Alternately, keepers of the remains may decide to move the remains to a less visible place, causing urns to be kept in closets, basements or other more secluded locations. None of these scenarios gives a dignified and reverent resting place for the deceased.
Another problem has been how the cemetery industry has addressed cremen remains. Many parks and cemeteries simply allot a smaller parcel of ground for the internment. Thus, while this allows the person to be interned in less area, the cost reduction is not paralleled by the commensurate reduced area of ground utilized. Alternately, the cemeteries have mausoleums in which cremens are placed, often with memorabilia and pictures of the deceased. While a fit and dignified option, this is more expensive. Further, the remains are easily accessible, giving no real security that vandals or others will not be able to desecrate the remains.
A concern to the wider population and its municipalities is the land dedicated to the burial of human remains. As populations have increased, and the attention and care given to cemeteries and memorial parks has risen, traditional methods of burial will cause great pressures on local land usages. Even where one area has enough land to allow in-ground burial, the financial pressures for alternate land uses often will make such locations economically burdensome. As already mentioned, history has demonstrated that cemeteries have, regrettably, fallen into disrepair and even been so overgrown that the cemeteries become lost. In such circumstances, the reverence and beauty of the final resting place is greatly diminished, and the lack of permanent care shown. While it is known that local and state laws strive to now avoid this occurrence, it is well known that simply passing a law does not ensure its adherence.
A final concern is the design of the mausoleums. Following the traditional design, such structures are usually boxes. At times, the structures are hidden, such as underneath drives or in chapels. Marble and other cold building materials are used, which does not invite one to make frequent visits to the site and, it visited, does not uplift one who does visit. Such traditional designs of mausoleums may not offer the appropriately high level of reverence for the deceased loved one, particularly noting the higher elevation of expectations of the people today.
One attempt to address this final concern is found in U.S. Pat. No. 4,780,994 issued to Chen. Chen teaches a honeycomb structure for internment of human remains. Multiple levels are built below ground, with crypts provided for interment of bodies. Aisleways are provided to visit individual crypts, where a marker is provided. Above ground, a structure is built, even in multiple stories, where cremens are contained. No particular structure is given for the building, and all remains are retrievable.
A similar facility in concept is found in U.S. Pat. No. 3,978,627 issued to Booth. Booth teaches a buried structure for multiple, stacked crypts, which can be visited by a friend or relative. One level may come above ground, but the entire structure is covered with earth, optimally in the form of a frusto-pyramid. All crypts can be visited. Again, these remains are retrievable.
Early mausoleum designs were concerned with building economical structures. Such mausoleums were often formed with common walls between crypts, or comprised a common area wherein multiple urns were placed. In all cases, these mausoleums allowed access ways to visit the remains.
Additionally, such structures should be termed to be retrievable storage places for the human remains. In defining this term, what is meant by retrievable is that the remains are simply stored behind a cover, such as in a crypt, or simply are buried in the ground. Any body or cremens buried in the ground is retrievable simply by digging up the remains. Likewise, crypts are accessible by unscrewing and removing the cover plate. These are characterized by a low degree of difficulty in retrieving remains.
Some patents have attempted to address vandalism. One such patent is U.S. Pat. No. 1,964,234 issued Vogel. Vogel teaches the use of a fusible material with the cover plate to increase the time necessary to remove the cover plate, as well as increasing its difficulty. Vogel asserts that vandals will need to take too long to open such a vault, such that they or the damage they have done will be discovered. This presumes, however, a watchful guard or a crypt that is visited often. As people move away from burial centers, such sites may be visited by loved ones infrequently, even only with the interval of years, and then only at holidays or birthdays. Thus, months or more could pass between visits, and a hidden crypt is ripe fodder for vandals.
History notes that in two famous cases, among others possible, the body of a famous person was buried in the ground underneath several feet of cement. This was first done with the grave of Abraham Lincoln, whose grave had been the target of vandals. Later, the outlaw John Dillinger was interred likewise due to expected grave robbers. To prevent desecration of the body of gangster Al Capone, the family finally buried the man in an anonymous grave. Such situations as these should not need be resorted to for a proper burial.
Despite the efforts of Vogel and others, graves as commonly known now are, to the definition of the term in this application, retrievable. Even bodies like Lincoln and Dillinger are retrievable, though the effort would require heavy equipment and several days of effort. What is seen as non-retrievable is any situation of interment that would require not only heavy equipment, but additionally identification means, such as a map to find particular remains. Further, such remains would require not merely days or weeks, but rather require years to retrieve at prohibitive cost. Further, the time necessary to retrieve the remains only can be counted once privacy contracts have either been waived or necessary court orders obtained to direct the retrieval, not to mention the redress of the rights of the other remains being disturbed therein.
Thus, what is needed is a burial option that allows more interments of cremens in a given space. Further, what is needed is a burial structure that prevents desecration of the cremens by rendering the remains unattainable. Additionally, what is needed is for structure to place the modern technology at the usage of visitors within a structure design that enhances the memory of the departed and draws one to visit them, while doing so in a special manner. It is to these needs that the present invention is directed.